On Hylozoism and whether it was Adolf Hitler's religion

I appreciate reading your analysis of Hylozoism and your views about Hitler, Carolyn.  Thanks for taking the time to investigate the overwhelmingly large website to give an overview of its offerings and to give your readers more of an understanding about AH.  What you write makes a great deal of common sense. I do not want to be "enriched" by any esotericism concerning AH as an avatar, so I am grateful for the warning.  Hitler, the genius, and Hitler the noble leader are good enough ideas for me.  

Admittedly, the title of my site was not very well thought out but I owe that to inexperience. I now generally prefer calling it monism.

Taken further, in a religious sense, that Spirit (God) permeates all of physical matter.

Taken broadly, actually. The typical definition given for hylozoism barely scratches the surface of it's etymology. It's not surprising that Christians, such as Pope Pius XI and the theologian Richard Weikart, confuse it for pantheism. Incidentally, Weikart's various books about Hitler pointed out to me how similar Hitler and Haeckel were in their ideas and statements. This article also examines such similarities, albeit more broadly. http://worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Radical%20Ecology.htm
Ernst Haeckel's given formulation for hylozoism was:
“This expresses the fact that all substance has two fundamental attributes; as matter (hyle) it occupies space, and as force or energy it is endowed with sensation (cf. chapter xix.).”
This suggests something more than the usual interpretation.

And I think many people, possibly even Adolf Hitler, agree with it without ever knowing it by that name.

Neither Ernst Haeckel's publications nor the writings of pre-Socratic philosophers would've escaped him. He already reiterates a formulation given by Xenophanes and the maxim “struggle is the father of all things” employed in several speeches is an obvious recurrence to Herakleitos, who was also invoked by NS propagandists Robert Ley and Alfred Rosenberg.

It is a widespread human attitude.

That is categorically false. “Most uncivilized races still make no material distinction between the two sets of mental processes, as the well-known animal fables, the old legends, and the idea of the transmigration of souls prove.” (Haeckel)
Celsus pointed out how the first and foremost point about the Jews that bewildered the ancient Romans was their refusal to defer to the stars and planets (their contempt for stars being found in the passing mention of their god having “made the stars also”; Gen. 1:16), only recognizing heaven and the angels (essentially the royal stars of Persia), “as if it were possible that ‘the whole’ could be God, and yet its parts not divine.” Plotinos described the quasi-gnostic Christians of his time similarly.

That's why I don't think it's correct to claim to have discovered such a belief to be AH's 'religion.' Hitler found many ideas interesting and mentioned them in conversation. The more important thing for Janus, from what I can see, is to show that Hitler was not a Christian.

The most important thing for all to see is that Hitler regarded the monistic science as the definitive refutation of Christianity! It would be the dynamite he had long sought for in his youth. It is perfectly consistent with his declaration that science would triumph over the Church's dogma. This was not just some obscure theory he passed by like he did with Odic Force. Not to mention his embrace of Hanns Hoerbiger's theory demonstrates not only an appreciation for the struggle concept, but also an inclination for monism: “what is found in the universe is ice, and not water”.
The ancient foundation of the Marxist teaching, as identified by it's “cultural prophet” Georgi Plekhanov (recommended by Lenin), even preceding Christianity and Aristotle, was Demokritos, who is regarded as the founder of atomic theory. If NS posits itself to be the direct antithesis to Marxism, then it must necessarily have a counterpart basis of knowledge, which could only be Pythagorean/Platonist.

The temples are, as you can see, in a modified Greek style to fit into the surrounding architecture. Janus first learned about them from a comment made not so very long ago on my website and got excited about them. That Hitler chose the airiness of a temple design for these structures is supposed to reinforce to us his commitment to everything Greek.

Actually, I posited that the temples were ahead of their times, with the possibility of being pre-Grecian. I never once suggested that it had been modeled off of the Greeks, I was even implying that it had surpassed them. The commenter I was discussing them with said he had never seen anything like it before.

Why does J need to modify his claim with the use of 'in recent times' and how are we to define 'recent'? This comes across as tentative.

I made that revision in consideration of past labors of great men. Hitler was not unique in that proclamative task.
Furthermore, I possess no gift for formulation. I'm only good at assimilating ideas and piecing them together, in consideration of Hitler's philosophy that one should treat facts as pieces to a mosaic.
Wagener believed Hitler's greatest skill laid in “his ability to express and verbalize with altogether admirable distinctness and clarity any theme that happened to suit him or that an external occasion pulled into the sphere of the discussion–the ability such as others were able to develop only after long preparation and in the form of a carefully considered lecture.” (Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 176-177)
Laurency
"Laurency" claimed to have been a Pythagorean in a past life and he doesn't come off to me as being well-read or having a bad intention. As an intellectual, he has at least surpassed Schopenhauer, in whom he found something in common.

So here we go already with the esoteric beliefs. Is there actually a planetary hierarchy, which he then defines as 'avatars??

I never once claimed any of it as “esoteric” nor do I label my site as “esoteric”. I even go so far as to denounce “esoteric Hitlerism” as represented by Savitri, Serrano, Myatt, etc. I would add Colin Jordan and James Larratt Battersby to that list. I believe even I expressed skepticism about a planetary hierarchy somewhere on the site at one point.
I might have later removed that, in consideration for Table Talk entry Feb. 17, 1942: “Peace can result only from a natural order. The condition of this order is that there is a hierarchy amongst nations. The most capable nations must necessarily take the lead.” This same notion was expressed by Otto Dietrich in one of his speeches, who invoked Platon's Laws as a model for this idea.

Did Hitler ever, ever, ever mention avatars? It's not like he never heard of such things, but he was always against this type of esotericism applied to himself, as J himself acknowledges in some places.

If he did, I'm sure I could find it given enough time and motivation. But at present, I do not know if he specifically mentioned the term. Besides, no avatar testifies to himself. I know, however, that Hitler (as well as Rudolf Hess) did hold onto a belief that Providence sent great men in times of need. Also, Peter Padfield recounts testimony from Felix Kersten (who's memoirs may not be so reliable) about Himmler applying the Hindu formulation ‘whenever the law of righteousness withers and lawlessness arises, I will be born anew’ to Hitler's appearance on the world stage.

“Most people” know that Hitler had many hopes and aspirations for the German people; he was not obsessed only with the race question.

Maybe it's just from my many dealings with moralists, but a vast section of human beings probably don't see it this way.

Funny, though, that it is always non-Germans who do indeed downplay the race issue.

From what I can tell, race as it is treated in modern-day nationalist circles is largely divorced from religion. In my discussions with people online, they often tell me that they are irreligious and only identify outwardly as religious.

And neither was his main interest in “weaning them off Christianity.” In fact, he didn't think the German people needed to be weaned off Christianity at all, in spite of his own personal beliefs and feelings about it.

His speeches throughout 1936-1941 speak for themselves. “God helps those who help themselves.” He urges them with unmistakable consistency not to rely on international and foreign aid, not to believe “in forces and ideals which lay outside the German Reich and outside of our people”.

It was not until after the 1937 “Mit brennender Sorge” attack on his regime by the Catholic bishop, and Pope Pius XI's 1938 statement on the “inadmissibility” of antisemitism that Hitler spoke seriously about confronting and lessening the Church's ability to confront his government.

Perhaps. He explicitly says in a Nov. 22, 1937 speech that he was founding a new state not founded in Christianity.

If you call Hitler a Germanophile you would be correct. Far more than he ever was a philhellene. I am not denying he was an admirer of ancient Greece, particularly their art.

Not only ancient Greece. He frequently praises his contemporary Greek adversaries in his speeches.

He links to this Wiki page to prove that Euripides in 420 BC was the author of "Try first thyself, and after call in God; For to the worker God himself lends aid."

That was not my intention for linking to that section. I never even mentioned Euripides. The link was meant to provide background, that is all.

I say, how many things of universal appeal began, to our knowledge, with the Greeks only because the Greek culture flowered first? We are the Greeks, moved further forward in time!

Admittedly, a better climate would have afforded the German people the same blossoming and I do regard the German people as the cultural successors and inheritors of ancient Greece.
 
“Hitler and his chiefs remained in the Catholic Church to avoid losing supporters.”
 
Clarification: he didn't want party division plus he acknowledged that Christianity had once served as a weltanschaaung foundation for Germany's morality.
 

He believed in a Creator/Creative Force that he held in reverence; his favorite word for it was Providence (implying beneficence). He found inspiration in Natural Law, in Nature's Wisdom.

And that is a contradiction.Also, the much abused word “create” should be substituted with “shape”.
“All that modern hygiene now does for the public health, especially the improvement of the dwellings and food of the poorer classes, the prevention of disease by healthier habits, baths, athletics, etc., can be traced to the monistic teaching or reason, and is altogether opposed to the Christian belief in Providence and the dualism connected therewith. The maxim of modern hygiene is: God helps those who help themselves.” (Ernst Haeckel)
Hitler's use of Providence was obviously not in the Christian or Deist sense. He merely took advantage of the word's ambiguity, knowing it would resonate with a Christian majority Germany. Martin Bormann made it explicitly clear that they did not mean a belief in “a manlike being who is sitting around in some corner of the spheres”. To Otto Wagener, Hitler had said, “If I use the word ‘divine,’ I am not visualizing a god in human form with a long white beard.” A Waffen-SS publication by devoted poet Kurt Eggers, whose quotes compilation had been read by Hitler, also discusses this subject.

Does J want to reconcile Laurency's teachings with Hitler simply because he likes them both?

I only like people who I have thoroughly studied and gotten to know. Even friends are merely acquaintances to me. I know hardly anything about “Laurency”, as such, I cannot be said to like him. I certainly appreciate him for his insight but that's all.
I actually dislike “Laurency” for his impertinent condemnation of Hitler without examining the pertaining literature. “Laurency” was familiar with the writings of innumerable theosophists, occultists, spiritualists, philosophers, scientists, etc. and addresses every one of them in great detail. But then how did he manage to overlook this one ideology and in turn hail FDR as a cultural savior? This proves that no man is absolutely invulnerable to atrocity propaganda and one would do well to remain constantly on guard against all such claims.

He also likes Adam Weishaupt, the originator of the Illuminati.

Weishaupt is probably the only one who I am really being subjective about. As it happens, I was introduced to his philosophical works before Hitler and “Laurency”. They speak volumes! I have also put a considerable amount of time into studying his life and ideas.
Furthermore, I am of the belief that one should pay homage to past precedents. To this day, Weishaupt remains a neglected reformer outside of Germany and his movement has become the unceasing victim of insipid caricature (undoubtedly an attempt to heap more guilt and shame upon Germans). By countering the myths that have built around him and his movement, it removes a large obstacle in pinpointing the true culprits of our time's calamity. Even FDR's son-in-law Curtis Dall puts the blame on the Illuminati.
Weishaupt was influenced by Christoph Meiners, who is said to have influenced “the well-known student of races” Ludwig Schemann. People will quote George Washington's concerns on the spread of Illuminism in masonic lodges. I in turn point them out to Thomas Jefferson's letter concerning Weishaupt, who he identifies as a reformer of Christianity. Is it a coincidence that four years later, he would go on to pen a treatise on The Philosophy of the Nazareth?

He often repeats that his site is WIP – a work in progress. I would say that J himself is a work in progress, and that is okay because he's still young.
I shouldn't have to point out how it is in youth that people lay down their groundwork.
 
What is not okay with me is that instead of fitting his site around Adolf Hitler (where he may have begun), he fits Adolf Hitler into his site (that is, into his own beliefs).
As I have recently added to the About page, my actual beliefs are nihilistic.
I merely bear the optimistic monistic teaching in hope that someone who understands it will take it up.

It's also not okay that he will over-emphasize a single mention of something by Hitler in conversation into an important part of Hitler's belief system. In so doing, he downplays AH's German origins and his love and loyalty to his people, or to his always overriding racial beliefs; instead he emphasizes Hitler the World Avatar and universal man of destiny.

That is absurd. It wasn't a single mention, it was mentioned in two separate conversations in the same month, also being affirmed in a speech (which is undoubtedly authentic, as the audio matches the transcript). Plus I have never used the word "avatar" to refer to Hitler.
I also indicated that the fulfiller of universal yearning would come after him. I fully recognize that he had only come for the German people.
Plus, Hitler's love for his people is undeniable. For comparison,
"Thank God the overwhelming mass of the German Volk has a finely attuned sense for who counts himself among the Volk and who distances himself from it." (Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 211)
"Thank God, the German Volk, as I have come to know it in its mass of different individuals, is strong and thoroughly healthy." (Nov. 8, 1943 speech)

This can't be stopped but also doesn't need to be encouraged.

I can call it quits anytime. As you know, I'm not invested in the future. But why would I shut down something I've spent so much time on? It'd be a "sin" of omission to do nothing with this knowledge.

And, rather pathetically, J states he is unable to tie all his quotes together to make a convincing case, so hopes for “another to come” (preferably a German!) who will be able to take it over and make it work.

That's not how I put it. I said, "It is hoped that someone who sees the bigger picture will build upon this site’s archives. Ideally a Germanic researcher. I’m hardly qualified for this task. I am not a German and lack the organizational talent to make it further comprehensible." Here my inferiority complex shows itself. If you compare my site to a publication by Schopenhauer or even the Jew Spinoza, you'll find the latter easier to read. Mine comes off as just being a giant jumble of quotes which only I seem to be familiar with navigating. At the very least, it furnishes me with a foundation for my beliefs so it's not entirely worthless.

I think what J is really interested in is conciousness. Everyone is interested in that, except for the extremely dull-witted.

Hardly, my interest is in the matter aspect. The Orientals tend to incline themselves towards consciousness and mysticism, but I am not one of them.

"There is no time in our past when anything was “more advanced” or more anything than it is in this now moment."
 
That is incorrect, @Carolyn! The first half of the 20th century was far advanced in its hatred of Christianity than we are. See the rise of Young Earth creationism in the US and the discontinuation of forced sterilization in Sweden.